… it is an ongoing issue, though some people like to make us think in a reduced way about it … – and see it only as matter international law.
Here another take:
Something from The Economist’s e-newsletter, received on the 26th of May, a headline saying
|Why America should make it harder to buy guns|
|In many states, it is easier to own a gun than a dog. That is absurd|
Then the charts:
Guns are the things most likely to kill young people in America.
And the former US-president Trump boldly demanding a further escalation, making it easier (still possible?) to buy a weapon, allowing (not to say encouraging) teachers to use weapons ….
… and undermining public debates in a weird way: accepting and promoting and even celebrating what fits into the scheme, rejecting and even criminalising what does not:
… and paradoxically resulting in a kind of binary code: if you are not in support of me, you are against me. Let’s afce the truth: as much as MZ may well be a criminal, there is something about Facebook that we may consider as being valuable; and as much as JA acted in the name of freedom, there is something about “unspecified freedom” (not to say unqualified freedom) that is more than problematic. – Perhaps we may have to talk more about responsibility and look for a serious way to accept the series and unending string of challenges.